posted at 9:20 am on August 31, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Even under normal circumstances, Barack Obama would have had a difficult time meeting expectations for his acceptance speech. With the speech scheduled on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and his own historic status as the first African-American on a major-party presidential ticket, Obama had some heavy lifting to craft a speech that would resonate through those themes. As William Safire notes, though, Obama barely tried, and surrounded the setting with so much stagecraft and fanfare that the Greek colonnade behind him evoked one simple message — hubris:

BY choosing the venue of a vast outdoor stadium as John Kennedy did for his “new frontier” acceptance, and by speaking on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” address, Barack Obama — whose claim to fame is an ability to move audiences with his words — deliberately invited comparison with two of the most memorable speeches of our recent history.

What a mistake.

A speaker must first ask: what is the best setting to make close contact with the person I want to reach? In this day and age, it is not a huge throng wildly cheering on cue. On the contrary, the target is the individual American voter watching a TV or computer screen at home, accustomed to looking over the shoulders of elected representatives, in colorful convention assembled, selecting the party’s nominee.

Instead, Obama’s handlers offered the political version of “American Idol” — the audacity of hype. On the 50-yard line of the football field, at a reported cost of $6 million, they erected a plywood Parthenon, its fake Grecian columns suggesting the White House. At the end, not a traditional balloon drop in a contained hall — enjoyable hoopla — but a fireworks display in the heavens over a mass of humanity in a blizzard of confetti, all too like the collectivist fantasy that opened and closed the Beijing Olympics.

And Safire hasn’t even started addressing the speech itself. Almost alone among the commentariat, Safire picked out the passage where Obama all but accused John McCain of cowardice — a point I noted:

Then came a strange one: “John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell — but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.” What’s that supposed to mean — that McCain is a coward, unwilling to lead a charge into the hills of Pakistan? That Obama would? Most post-speech TV analysis, blown away by the sky-piercing fireworks, ignored that low blow; nor was attention paid to his replay of the charge that “naysayers” are motivated by more than his politics: “I don’t fit the typical pedigree.”

Ironically, just before that, Obama said he’d like to have a debate on patriotism and national defense with John McCain. Really? McCain offered a series of town-hall debates, one per week, starting in the summer and running straight through to the election. Obama, who had made this exact same statement in May, ran away from the challenge instead.

John McCain doesn’t need to demonstrate his courage and willingness to defend this country. Obama doesn’t want to face McCain in open-forum debates, even after his childish challenges get answered. Draw your own conclusions.

As for the rest of the speech, Safire says, it offered nothing more than what Obama supporters hear in his stump speeches. He did mention Dr. King, but almost as an afterthought. Instead of offering soaring rhetoric that transcended race, Obama hinted that racism lies at the heart of any opposition to his candidacy, a smear he’s now made four times this summer. Instead of offering specifics, he fell back onto the populist rhetoric that grew tiresome and ineffective for Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards by the end of the primaries.

In the end, the setting provided an unintentional theme of hubris and hype. That sums up Barack Obama and his quest for the presidency, without having ever run anything or accomplished anything in his career.

No one is likely to argue that the speech here “changed politics in America.” His jibes at John McCain and George Bush were standard-issue Democratic fare, and his recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered by any Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry.

There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did. …

One of the major questions about Obama, of whom so little is known, is whether he is really serious about challenging the partisan gridlock in Washington or whether his election would simply bring on the regular wish list of liberal policies.

His Boston speech — and many others early in this campaign — suggested that he was sincere in wanting to tamp down partisanship and would be creative enough to see the need for enlisting bright people from both parties in confronting the nation’s problems.

But the Denver speech, like many others he has given recently, subordinated any talk of fundamental systemic change to a checklist of traditional Democratic programs.

One could argue that Obama made that tranformation five days earlier, when he picked a 35-year Washington insider with a plethora of connections to lobbyists and PACs as his running mate on the supposed “reform” ticket. In order to believe that, though, you’d have to believe that Obama was ever serious about reform. He didn’t attempt reform in Illinois, and he didn’t attempt it in Chicago. Obama didn’t even attempt it at his church.

Broder thinks that the speech transformed Obama into a standard big-government liberal. Actually, it just exposed him as such, and Broder and the rest of the media have finally started to realize it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

OK, it’s early, but I’m calling it now. Even if Obama loses in a landslide, taking 49 states and 75% of the popular vote, the Dems will still claim we “stole” the election somehow. The just can’t see their candidates’ weaknesses…they see a grandiose suit of clothes on their naked king.

I tried to listen to Obama’s speech. When he started outright lying about McCain and McCain’s record, I just had to turn it off. Come on Barry, if your policy proposals really are that much better than McCain’s, why do you have to incessantly lie about them?

Then he says McCain won’t follow bin Laden to his cave? And that he is willing to debate McCain on foreign policy any time?

Again, more lies. Obama, the one I once knew, was unafraid, bold, and a new type of politician. This is not the Obama I once knew. This Obama lies with impunity and masquerades as a bipartisan uniter when he is nothing of the sort.

What’s that supposed to mean — that McCain is a coward, unwilling to lead a charge into the hills of Pakistan? That Obama would?

Oh c’mon, Obama has demonstrated both his courage and his willingness to sacrifice for this country by his . . . uh . . . when he did . . . uh . . . well, uh . . . oh, you’re all just a bunch of racists!

Ironically, just before that, Obama said he’d like to have a debate on patriotism and national defense with John McCain. Really? McCain offered a series of town-hall debates, one per week, starting in the summer and running straight through to the election. Obama, who had made this exact same statement in May, ran away from the challenge instead.

As the hype increased with Obama, it became pretty clear that this was going to be a Britney Spears-type situation. It wouldn’t take long for the self-destruction to start happening. Much like Ms. Spears, Obama began to believe his own press and began to refuse to start answering really tough questions. And gets very irritated anytime anyone dares question his version of reality.

I think Barack Obama is a fabulous public speaker. I think he’d make a great Presidential Candidate in four to eight years. With a little experience under his belt. Right now, I’m thinking he’s the weakest Presidential Candidate ever offered by either side. He ran a campaign that is to be commended for its pure and utter overhype, but he still is woefully underqualified to be President.

Then came a strange one: “John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell — but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.” What’s that supposed to mean — that McCain is a coward, unwilling to lead a charge into the hills of Pakistan? That Obama would?

Whoa, how did we miss this arrogant dig on McCain here. Safire missed the real meaning too. Anyone on the far left should understand this as saying, “Yeah, I know you’ll go to hell John, but why won’t you try to catch bin Laden?”

I usually don’t fall for the notion that we hear every four years: “this is the most important election in modern times.” However, I have to say that I think this one is; not because of McCain/Palin–they are merely the counterweights of history. The real focus of this election is Obama, and American ideals, and a referendum on the media.

Obama represents the mainstreaming of socialist thought in America. It has always been there (at least since the 1930s), but my feeling is that it was always a fringe idea–one that Americans saw as dangerous, even evil. Obama now makes socialism sound good to naive ears who have no recollection of what socialism actually looks like in the world.

I have no real beef with socialism itself, other than the fact that every time it is tried, the lucky ones get lazy and poor, and the unlucky ones get dead. If some other country chooses socialism, that is their business–but it is not what America is about. It goes completely against the American value system. If Obama wins, and his socialist ideals take shape (more than they already have), then America loses itself.

Finally, the media. Any free society depends on a free press. After living in China for several years, I’m convinced of this. I’ve often thought, as bad as the US media is, at least it is not government controlled. Now, I am scared at what I see in our media. They are not government controlled, but they seem to have an ideology. When a media has an ideology, they become a propaganda wing of a political movement. If you look at the history of socialist takeovers in China and Cuba, you will see that news media and entertainment played a huge role in winning over the people. I fear that our media is betraying us.

I don’t think Obama will destroy the US in four years if he wins. I do fear that he may give us a swift push down the slope toward socialism, and that makes me hope he loses his bid, and every bid in the future. I hope his ideas are made clear to the people so they can see them unmasked.

Bravely bold Obama rode forth from Illinois.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Obama!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Obama!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Obama!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen–

“Ironically, just before that, Obama said he’d like to have a debate on patriotism and national defense with John McCain.” Really?

Sure. Debate. Dialogue. Discussion. They are all the same. Just like the big one Jimmy Carter had on his latest book.

It consists of welcoming it in some early speech, like this one, and then commenting on how well he is doing in it in every single person MSM toady interview he grants while ignoring everything anyone else to say. Unless he isn’t doing well in which case he accuses everyone else of distortion and bad faith (Obama’s favorite denigrations go here.) Then he continues the debate by proxy with MSM toady interviewers tossing cherry-picked, obfuscated, and strawman talking points from the latest Obama Press Release.

Oh, and don’t forget to turn off the cellphone and not return calls requesting one be set up until you have a conflicting engagement.

I said in my liveblog summation that, but for a few words swapped in or out, this was essentially the same speech he gave as keynote speaker in Boston in 2004. I don’t see why the media are wetting their pants over the speech. It isn’t like it’s the first time they hear this speech.

I’m confident that the Republicans will win the White House. I hope that we can also re-take Congress this November, riding on Palin’s dresstails, so to speak. But don’t get cocky, kid. There is still a lot of election drama yet to come. It may get nastier than we’ve ever seen, as the Dems will have to either go low or give up. I don’t see them giving up, not after forcing their way past the Clinton machine.
They hired Biden as an attack dog. He may turn into a caricature of a rabid pitbull soon, which may be discomfiting to a man of his stature. He may be too old for the hunt.
Obama lacks the ability to ‘intimidate’ anyone, physically, through force of personality, or intellect. I’d be willing to take him on in any arena of political or theological thought. I’d beat him at bowling, too.

On point- I thought that Obama’s timid mention of Dr. King was the best choice he made in the entire speech. King dreamed of being “judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” For him to reference King or any suggestion of attainment of his Dream would have been a disgrace. At least in that one point, he showed some discretion and class.

That is something I found strange about the Dem convention: very few big celebrities got much camera time. This lead me to believe that the suits in the dinosaur media have finally figured out that George Clooney’s repeated endorsements do not have a positive net effect. Unlike reporters, most Americans don’t care what Clooney thinks about the candidates and most probably think he’s a fool for thinking that anyone would care.

On point- I thought that Obama’s timid mention of Dr. King was the best choice he made in the entire speech. King dreamed of being “judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” For him to reference King or any suggestion of attainment of his Dream would have been a disgrace. At least in that one point, he showed some discretion and class.

Damiano on August 31, 2008 at 10:21 AM

I saw an interview of the man who wrote King’s speech. He seemed to damn Obama’s speech with faint praise. He seemed to think that Obama did little to acknowledge the occasion.

Don’t be sorry. That was well spoken and right on. Especially this part, which bears repeating:

I have no real beef with socialism itself, other than the fact that every time it is tried, the lucky ones get lazy and poor, and the unlucky ones get dead. If some other country chooses socialism, that is their business–but it is not what America is about. It goes completely against the American value system. If Obama wins, and his socialist ideals take shape (more than they already have), then America loses itself.

This is what the leftists in America fail to understand. Socialism won’t discriminate against whom it makes poor and dead.

My kitty says:

And, I’m pretty sure that absolutely NONE of the founding fathers were socialists. Can you hear me now, Barry?

Obama’s speech was right out of the Dem playbook of the past several decades; nothing new, just words, void of substance, filled with baseless attacks… Nothing new here at all. In time, the majority of people will see this man for what he really is; a radical Liberal with nothing new to offer other than pure raw Liberalism…

The Alphie’s and J_G’s of the country will vote for him no matter what he says, as they would vote for Hugo Chavez if he ran on the Dem ticket; however, a general election is a difficult beast to win if one can’t hide (mask) his/her Liberalism. No hiding Obama’s radical Liberalism following that speech… Just words Obama; no quite the contrary, the nation is listening.

Obama is now caught up in a “dead heat” race, with his double digit lead completely wiped out. Obama is now faced with a tough decision. He can do what all others before him have done “seek to destroy the opponent by any means possible”, or take McCain head on and debate Liberal principles against Republican-Conservative principles, and let the people decide. I predict he will choose to take the attack-attack-attack approach, as Liberal principles will not win a general election.

No Drill – No Spill; this is the Obama solution for our energy crisis. Wave the white flag and disgrace our soldiers and our nation once again; this is Obama’s solution for the WOT. Every human, from every country on earth, has the right to come to America and live the American dream, complete Amnesty for the 12-20 million illegals that currently have invaded our country; this is Obama’s solution for the illegal immigration crisis that is wiping out our infrastructure.

I disagree on one point: I do believe Obama, by his obvious warm spot for terrorists/traitors, his unwillingness to face tough issues — as exemplified by his fear of debating McCain — and his child-like belief that he can “negotiate” with enemies around the world can destroy America in four years.

Or at least he can stand idly by while said enemies do the job for him.

Who’s going to give him some spine when things get tough? Biden?

I’m not being racist when I say that I fear Obama’s election will be the beginning of a new Dark Ages of fear, deceit and defeat.

“Well, it doesn’t really matter who McCain picked, because, well, like, Obama’s going to win because like, ALL the celebrities are for him, and well, he’s totally gonna win.”

Blech. Pop culture will destroy us long before the terrorists do.

anniekc on August 31, 2008 at 10:02 AM

I couldn’t agree more. The American Idol element scares the hell out of me. It didn’t work in 2000 and 2004, but that while Gore was still known as the husband of Tipper- Mother of Censorship and had not yet embarked on his quest for Man-Bear-Pig. Kerry was… well… Kerry. It did work for Mr. Rock-the-Vote-with-my-Saxophone Clinton. As Billary put it in his DNC speech, he was once the young guy who didn’t have any experience. Even after Whitewater, Lewinsky-Gate, letting bin Laden go, gutting the military, countless sexual harassment suits, shady library funding, etc.; the nutroots still love him.

Obama has put the Clinton-esque rock-the-vote appeal on steroids with an internet age kicker. He’s got the famous for being famous thing down cold.

If Palin was twice as usless as the left makes her out to be, I’d still adore her for the sole reason that she has been Obama’s buzz kill. I just hope it’s enough to relegate Obama to being post-head-shave, busted ravioli, rehab Brittney.

Jeez, William Safire actually had a cogent and HONEST analysis of BO’s spiel? Wonder what the NYT’s ever-shrinking readership reacted to that.

McCain-Palin ‘08 VICTORY

J.J. Sefton on August 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM

An important point about this editorial is that Safire has been retired from editorial writing for the NYT for three to four years. He’s continued to write his Sunday On Language column, as he has since 1979. But, again, he came out of retirement for this. Ted Sorensen (JFK), Peggy Noonan (Bush I), and he (Nixon), I believe, are the dean of presidential speech writers. This is a pretty big deal. Glad to hear from him.

And it’s not just the arrogance that ought to concern us, because that’s a character defect, and we all have those.

Hubris is specifically insolence against the laws of nature. All the bloodiest Utopians of the last two centuries talked about re-engineering human nature, creating a New Man, a Great Society.

Modern liberals in the 19th century promised that compulsory Government-school education would wipe out ignorance and prejudice, making war and conflict a thing of the past, giving us nothing but open road with Progress on the horizon.

How’s that plan going? I’ll tell you: the government schools have become propaganda camps for advocacy of more and more confiscation of wealth to pay for more and more utopian dreams.

Liberal utopianism has failed miserably in living up to its promises, and its overseas version murdered hundreds of millions of human beings through starvation or savage brutality, which sadly is the only remaining option when your social-engineering and economic plans were never more than an adolescent utopian abstraction.

McCain could go directly to the path of the storm, set-up in a large warehouse or aircrat hanger, bring top party officials, and act presidential. No ties, no skirts, just boot, jeans, and work gloves. Caterers engaged to be in MN could be asked to divert their food to shelters in the paths track. Lots of opportunities to show that the GOP is paying attention. Then we here should be asking where is Barry ? and why didn’t he try to STOP THE WINDS ?

And Michael Moore needs to be quoted hourly. The same Michael Moore that schmoozes Donkass circles on a regular basis.

I had read that the mindset of the youth demographics that cheer the Obama message is one of being part of a group. They have been schooled to work in cooperative groups, and competition is a dirty word to them.

John McCain is willing and able to endure prison cells in Vietnam…but he wouldn’t be willing to chase Osama in Pakistan? Ummmm….okay Barry.

watchmen on August 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I’ve said since March, when I learned of Obama’s longtime membership in Wright’s church, Obama didn’t have the guts to stand up to the lying, hateful, and un-American rants of his foul-mouthed pastor. Obama represents the absolute height of cowardice.

If Obama ever had McCain’s choice from 40 years ago of immediate release or indefinite imprisonment, Obama would have been on the first plane out of Hanoi. We know that, and Democrats know that too.

Give the American people some credit for the 2000 & 2004 election results. Obama had a double digit lead in most major polls a month ago; now he is behind by (2) in the Zogby poll, which is far more accurate than the phony polls lead by Gallup.

ZOGBY:

McCain/Palin 47%
Obama/Biden 45%…

The fact that the media is 100% jumping up and down, wetting their pants while crying off their phony eyelashes, doing everything in their power to get Obama elected; but yet Obama has lost his double digit lead, and is showing once again that he can’t close the deal… Give the American people some credit.

I think Barack Obama is a fabulous public speaker. I think he’d make a great Presidential Candidate in four to eight years. With a little experience under his belt.

I disagree. To grow from experience one has to admit mistakes and culpability. However Obama doesn’t think he ever makes mistakes. Witness his stubborn refusal to change his position on the surge. With Obama the problem isn’t that he doesn’t know things, but that he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know things. I don’t see that changing in the next four or eight years. The Obama we see today will be the Obama we see in the future — unless his life is touched by tragedy at some point (which is the great teacher of us all.)

don’t think Obama will destroy the US in four years if he wins. I do fear that he may give us a swift push down the slope toward socialism, …

There’s just a little rant. Sorry.

p40tiger on August 31, 2008 at 10:02 AM

A rant perhaps, but not one that needs an apology. One of my concerns about Mr Obama derives from the fact that he he has a few traits in common with Mr Blair: charming, smooth-talking, smiling, full of promises of hope and change, a lawyer and activist, power hungry from an early age, and expecting utopia from socialist policies. Their ideologies and character determine who they will be influenced by, who they will appoint to power, what they will do and what they will fail to do.

Mr Blair’s government did not destroy Britain, but via both policy and neglect, a great deal of damage has been done (or allowed to occur) to British society (the social fabric that actually makes a nation out of a group of people) and to the technical aspects of the nation such as its economy, and defense capability. Neither Mr Blair nor Mr Obama are *bad* men but their negatives have far more substance than their superficial happy-shiny exterior positives. Whether the UK ever recovers remains to be seen, but nobody should underestimate the damage that can arise when shallow, unwise, inexperienced men like Mr Blair and Mr Obama are allowed to attain positions of power.

John looked across the table at Barry, the only other player left at the table. He grinned slyly. Maybe at Barry, maybe to himself. Then, with slow deliberation he looked down at the chips in front of him, wrapped his hands around them, and purposefully pushed the considerable pile to the middle of the felt.

In a low, firm voice he announced “My friend, I’m all in”.

John then looked Barry full in the eye, winked, put on his sunglasses, and leaned back in his chair to await the call.

Barry broke into a visible sweat. He was totally shocked by the unexpected bet. This was not one for which he had prepared. This was for all the chips. His brain was wracked by a swirl of colliding thoughts. “Damn. Is he faking? Is he holding Aces? Damn. Fold or call? Fold or call? What does he have? Maybe nothing. Maybe a flush draw. Damn! Damn!!! Fold or call? Fold or call? How can he do this? I’m the chip leader, not him. He’s faking, right? Right? Dammit!!! Fold or call? Fold or call?”

Being the keeper of one’s brother implies that one’s brother is also one’s keeper. Who then is keeping who and what exactly does that entail?

It is a stupid, rather meaningless, saying that derives from a misunderstanding of a bible text. It became popular, I guess, not because it is useful but because (when it is misunderstood) it sounds so enlightened and noble.

I just read some comments over on the left side of the blogosphere, regarding the (2) Democrat Senators caught on tape laughing their asses off at the prospect of another hurricane hitting New Orleans during the GOP convention. Generalizing their comments: Damn those guys, they need to learn to shut their mouths while in public, what were they thinking damn-it, Republicans have cameras and recorders everywhere.

Not one comment I read said anything like “shame on those two, don’t they comprehend the fact that people are going to suffer”…. Not even a possibility in the mind of a Liberal; all about power at ANY cost.

I mean, can Democrats really make the case that this speech was in fact better than Mario Cuomo’s keynote address in 1984? Listen to Obama’s speech and then listen to Cuomo’s speech (and keep in mind it’s for a Democrat audience). It doesn’t even compare, Cuomo wins hands down.

In truth, a promise from Obama to hunt down UBL is akin to a promise from Barney Fife to get tough on criminals.

What do you bet that Biden carries Obama’s lone bullet?

One more Andy Griffith analogy: when I think of the MSM and the hard-left contemplating an all-out assault on Palin, I’m comforted by the thought of Sheriff Andy Taylor always winding up on top in any encounter with smarty-pants city slickers. Common sense, integrity, and right living invariably prevail.

In an unusually heated attack on a veteran political reporter by a cable news host, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann laced into the Associated Press’s Charles Babington an hour after Barack Obama had concluded his speech in Denver on Thursday night.

I guess we’ll have to add Safire and Broder to the list of those who are going to need to find a new line of work.

No Drill – No Spill; this is the Obama solution for our energy crisis. Wave the white flag and disgrace our soldiers and our nation once again; this is Obama’s solution for the WOT. Every human, from every country on earth, has the right to come to America and live the American dream, complete Amnesty for the 12-20 million illegals that currently have invaded our country; this is Obama’s solution for the illegal immigration crisis that is wiping out our infrastructure.

“I think Barack Obama is a fabulous public speaker. I think he’d make a great Presidential Candidate in four to eight years.”

I have listened to Obama a number of times. He is a mediocre speaker being propped up by addoring fans and a compliant media. They listen to his voice without listening to what he is saying. It is as if they are mesmerized.
Even with a teleprompter he has no sense of when to change his tone, when to emphasize certain words.

I guess we’ll have to add Safire and Broder to the list of those who are going to need to find a new line of work.

Sparrow on August 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Safire’s been retired from writing editorials for the NYT for three or four years. That alone ads to the significance of this editorial. Even if the NYT other writers are put off by it, the Times’s Sunday Magazine will continue to carry Safire’s On Language column because it’s one of the paper’s few draws. I know it’s the only reason I go to its Web site once a week.

The American Idol element scares the hell out of me. It didn’t work in 2000 and 2004, but that while Gore was still known as the husband of Tipper- Mother of Censorship and had not yet embarked on his quest for Man-Bear-Pig. Kerry was… well… Kerry. It did work for Mr. Rock-the-Vote-with-my-Saxophone Clinton.

Actually it wasn’t the saxaphone/celebrity aspect of Bill Clinton that put him over the top; it was Ross Perot both times. Remember that Clinton never got 50% of the vote.